Greater Anglia Rolling Stock Updates

[Wivenswold]

All the stations that Stansted Express services call at have long enough platforms for the 745s. As with the GEML, it is platforms for class 720 services that are the problem

There aren't platform length problems on the Electric network with the 745s. It's the WA branches that'll need an alternative to the 720s for now, either the refurbished 317s or 379s.

 

[F Great Eastern]

There aren't platform length problems on the Electric network with the 745s. It's the WA branches that'll need an alternative to the 720s for now, either the refurbished 317s or 379s.

Realistically though, it's pretty shocking that this was not identified as an issue when the order was announced, the fact that they only seemed to realise it would be a problem late on is pretty damning.

 

[MrPIC]

Not just the branches the whole damn WAML is 8 car platforms except a handful. And if you go north beyond Cambridge it's even worse!

 

[Wivenswold]

I believe it was identified as an issue. My understanding (and I would appreciate a peer review from anyone who has been watching more closely) is that GA requested the changes needed and seem to have assumed Network Rail would do the work.

As for the Wivenhoe gap, I think the longer Aventra carriages will be equally problematic. I assume GA have identified this issue and have done the tests required to ensure that Aventras aren't prohibited from stopping there. I say "assume" but it's more "hope".

 

[hwl]

I believe it was identified as an issue. My understanding (and I would appreciate a peer review from anyone who has been watching more closely) is that GA requested the changes needed and seem to have assumed Network Rail would do the work.

As for the Wivenhoe gap, I think the longer Aventra carriages will be equally problematic. I assume GA have identified this issue and have done the tests required to ensure that Aventras aren't prohibited from stopping there. I say "assume" but it's more "hope".

it looks like they might not have have understood the process fully. the changes can be requested but they need to be funded in some way, either in as part of the older CP process, directly by DfT outside the old CP process or in the new major enhancements process or by the TOC including the resudual value mechanism. they sppear to have believed in the equivalent of the tooth fairy funding mechanism.

 

[306024]

It looks like GA thought Dft and NR would finance the infrastructure changes required. Meanwhile NR thought DfT and GA would fund it, and the DfT thought it was up to GA and NR. Try apportioning the responsibility between that lot

Regardless there’s an awful lot to do before all these new trains fit everywhere they are intended to go.

 

[86246]

It looks like GA thought Dft and NR would finance the infrastructure changes required. Meanwhile NR thought DfT and GA would fund it, and the DfT thought it was up to GA and NR. Try apportioning the responsibility between that lot

Regardless there’s an awful lot to do before all these new trains fit everywhere they are intended to go.

Other than the planned works at Sheringham, anyone aware of other platform alterations that have been scheduled ?

 

[LAX54]

Realistically though, it's pretty shocking that this was not identified as an issue when the order was announced, the fact that they only seemed to realise it would be a problem late on is pretty damning.

Did I not read / hear somewhere that the Ops side of GA were not consulted when the trains were ordered, and that now they have to 'make them fit' so to speak ? How true that is, I don't know

 

[306024]

Did I not read / hear somewhere that the Ops side of GA were not consulted when the trains were ordered, and that now they have to 'make them fit' so to speak ? How true that is, I don't know

There’s more than a whiff of truth. Abellio won the franchise bid by seducing the DfT with the promise of total fleet replacement. When the current GA Ops team found out the detail the die was cast. They are now shaving bits off the square pegs to make them fit in the round holes.

 

[Class 170101]

I never suggested that you would recast the timetable and remove 6 minutes from it. What I said was - the current timetable had so much slack that it was possible to recover as much as 6 minutes between Chelmsford and Colchester aboard a Class 360 - but definitely not a 321.

Note a Class 321 and a Class 360 operate to the same timing load to allow one to be swapped for the other. Therefore a Class 360 waits around at stations. However faster journey time for Class 360s masks the fact that dwell times with them are longer than with Class 321s.

 

[Railperf]

Note a Class 321 and a Class 360 operate to the same timing load to allow one to be swapped for the other. Therefore a Class 360 waits around at stations. However faster journey time for Class 360s masks the fact that dwell times with them are longer than with Class 321s.

Yes...i am well aware of the fact. It explains why a common fleet of trains is preferable. The 321s need to be driven almost flat out to meet the timetable. The Aventra Class 720s will take performance to a new level!

 

[delticdave]

Note a Class 321 and a Class 360 operate to the same timing load to allow one to be swapped for the other. Therefore a Class 360 waits around at stations. However faster journey time for Class 360s masks the fact that dwell times with them are longer than with Class 321s.

Why are the 360s dwell times longer than a 321?

 

[F Great Eastern]

Why are the 360s dwell times longer than a 321?

Doors are not as fast.

 

[Railperf]

Why are the 360s dwell times longer than a 321?

I'm not sure there is a huge amount in door closing difference. If anything i though the older units seemed to be faster from door closing to driver taking on power...but i stand to be corrected.
What i think was meant was that the Class 360's usually achieve shorter journey times between the stations than the 321's and therefore they are sat longer awaiting their allocated departure time.

 

[rdlover777]

Off topic but does anyone know when seating plans for the 745/0/1 and 755/3/4 will be available or is Stadler super secretive like Alstom

 

[dk1]

Off topic but does anyone know when seating plans for the 745/0/1 and 755/3/4 will be available or is Stadler super secretive like Alstom

Where they not shown in many of the railway magazines a couple of years back? I seem to recall being surprised at the detail.

 

[rdlover777]

Where they not shown in many of the railway magazines a couple of years back? I seem to recall being surprised at the detail.

do you know by chance which magazine? I dont really collect magazines outside of Railway Modeller

 

[F Great Eastern]

Absolute joke this morning, as well as the class 317 problem, there's a load of short forms on the GEML, a shortage of DMUs leading to local services being cancelled and many of the local hauled services are being short formed as well.

DMU Cancellations include
06:14 Lowestoft to Ipswich due 07:44
07:30 Great Yarmouth to Norwich due 08:05
08:03 Ipswich to Peterborough due 09:40

 

[dk1]

do you know by chance which magazine? I dont really collect magazines outside of Railway Modeller

Most likely Modern Railways. Gave a full plan of 745/0 as noted the buffet and original plan of no 1st class toilets.

 

[47421]

I suspect the new WA timetable might try reduce the number of calls at Harlow Town / Bishops Stortford where possible to try and retain existing journey times to and from Stansted Airport. This might see the calls moved to the new Cambridge train that was planned to be introduced.

Dont think that is what Train Service Requirement in the Franchise Agreement says. Harlow Town and Bishops Stortford to Stansted Airport are major flows in their own right as Stansted Airport is a major employer. Going 2TPH to 1TPH off peak wouldnt work

 

[47421]

The Hertford East service was considered for transfer to TfL, but political boundaries rather that operational convenience won the argument.

Yep real shame was not transferred, especially as has meant Stratford - Tottenham Hale - Angel Road (Meridian Water) also remains with GA. The 5/10 car 24m 720s may have looked good on paper, with lots of extra capax provided by longer carriages / fewer cabs, but not looking so clever now. Franchise Agreement said platform work should have been done by Oct 2018, Network Rail now have it down as a 2021 event. That means 5 car 720s only to Hert East until then, or 8 car something else, but what no one knows, could be 379s, but if so what a waste of a quality unit. Could be 317s if they get a PRM derogation. Or something completely new, 365s??

New platforms for Stratford - Tottenham Hale - Angel Road (Meridian Water) are 8x20m max, time will tell whether 10car 720s can work the route. In a sensible world Hert East and STAR would have been integrated with TfL West Anglia inners and use 8 car 710s

 

[Railperf]

Absolute joke this morning, as well as the class 317 problem, there's a load of short forms on the GEML, a shortage of DMUs leading to local services being cancelled and many of the local hauled services are being short formed as well.

DMU Cancellations include
06:14 Lowestoft to Ipswich due 07:44
07:30 Great Yarmouth to Norwich due 08:05
08:03 Ipswich to Peterborough due 09:40

My usual 9.00 Stratford to Bishops Stortford was formed of a comfy and quiet 379 today instead of the usual rust bucket 317.

 

[dk1]

Absolute joke this morning, as well as the class 317 problem, there's a load of short forms on the GEML, a shortage of DMUs leading to local services being cancelled and many of the local hauled services are being short formed as well.

DMU Cancellations include
06:14 Lowestoft to Ipswich due 07:44
07:30 Great Yarmouth to Norwich due 08:05
08:03 Ipswich to Peterborough due 09:40

170201 failed at Lowestoft causing the ES and Peterborough cancellation.

 

[F Great Eastern]

170201 failed at Lowestoft causing the ES and Peterborough cancellation.

So that's what it was, had to take the scenic route to get to Peterborough due to that.

Also there were quite a few short forms more than were being advertised on JourneyCheck.

 

[Bikeman78]

The Hertford East service was considered for transfer to TfL, but political boundaries rather that operational convenience won the argument.

As mentioned above Stansted Express currently requires 9 circuits to operate, and is planned so there is always a train available in the platform at both ends. With ambitious planning you could reduce that to 8 circuits, but that comes with performance risk. Quite how it is sensible to maintain a fleet 115 miles away (electrically) from their usual routes is something only the bid team can explain though.

The Norwich service currently requires 10 circuits to operate plus one peak diagram. The bid team thought that could be reduced to 8 circuits , which probably gives a clue as to what planet they live on.

Both sets of 745 diagrams will be very tight. Currently the Stansted diagram with the latest start is the pair of 317s on the 06:55 LST-SSD. So that set will need to leave Norwich, either empty or in service, around 04:45. Each unit would only visit Norwich once every nine days.

As you say, the Norwich line requires 11 sets of stock. That could be cut down to 10 easily enough but is 100% off the fleet five days per week really achievable? I suppose they'll have the spare Stansted set to fall back on if a Norwich set fails at the start of the day.

 

[rdlover777]

Most likely Modern Railways. Gave a full plan of 745/0 as noted the buffet and original plan of no 1st class toilets.

ok, just had a look on there website, only stuff stadler related is an article about the 68 and 88

 

[dk1]

Both sets of 745 diagrams will be very tight. Currently the Stansted diagram with the latest start is the pair of 317s on the 06:55 LST-SSD. So that set will need to leave Norwich, either empty or in service, around 04:45. Each unit would only visit Norwich once every nine days.

As you say, the Norwich line requires 11 sets of stock. That could be cut down to 10 easily enough but is 100% off the fleet five days per week really achievable? I suppose they'll have the spare Stansted set to fall back on if a Norwich set fails at the start of the day.

Norwich should only require 9 745/0 sets for the slightly faster off peak half hourly frequency albeit with reduced turnaround times & the use of an extra peak only (SX) service formed of 720 or 745 stock.

 

[Wivenswold]

Both sets of 745 diagrams will be very tight. Currently the Stansted diagram with the latest start is the pair of 317s on the 06:55 LST-SSD. So that set will need to leave Norwich, either empty or in service, around 04:45. Each unit would only visit Norwich once every nine days.

As you say, the Norwich line requires 11 sets of stock. That could be cut down to 10 easily enough but is 100% off the fleet five days per week really achievable? I suppose they'll have the spare Stansted set to fall back on if a Norwich set fails at the start of the day.

Something I hadn't thought about until now but where are the Stansted 745s stabling overnight? Orient Way seems likely but does it have enough security to ensure the units don't get regular new livery amendments?

 

[trebor79]

Can't help thinking they've scrimped on the number of units ordered for the Norwich services to help deliver total fleet replacement.
Really the 170s don't need replacing and I dare say some of the EMUs don't either. Understand all the arguments about a common fleet (but that doesn't totally hold water with a load of 720s ordered). But all those new trains have to be paid for, and why replace perfectly good stuff well before it's required? Could have saved a few quid and ordered another couple of sets for the Norwich and Stansted services.

 

[Grumbler]

Can't help thinking they've scrimped on the number of units ordered for the Norwich services to help deliver total fleet replacement.
Really the 170s don't need replacing and I dare say some of the EMUs don't either. Understand all the arguments about a common fleet (but that doesn't totally hold water with a load of 720s ordered). But all those new trains have to be paid for, and why replace perfectly good stuff well before it's required? Could have saved a few quid and ordered another couple of sets for the Norwich and Stansted services.

Reduced maintenance costs by sourcing from only two manufacturers?